21–30 of 31 posts
I don't - I really think that it's a completely pointless distinction to make. Labelling some version of AI as general doesn't make it more or less useful.
I don't - I really think that it's a completely pointless distinction to make. Labelling some version of AI as general doesn't make it more or less useful.
Terms are useful so that people are discussing the same thing. Otherwise you get a lot of the heated debates where they're talking about different things but get frustrated by how the other party don't seem to get it.
it's probably a bit of a bad definition, but i'd say "something i can have a long conversation with and not figure out it's an AI"
It seemed fine to Alan Turing.
we aren't even going to agree on 'intelligence'
We could instead measure "political impact" and "economic impact".
I truly believe the "economic impact" and by extension the "political impact" will be undeniable and profound long before people get tired of arguing whether or not it is AGI, or whether or not it is sentient, or whether or not it has a 'soul' (despite not being able to clearly define 'soul').
2. Key cornerstone of a human intelligense is an ability to create something completely new that cannot be predicted or calculated in advance, another one is a will — none of those are even touched by current neural networks. DALLIE makes a nice imitation of the first point though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terms are useful so that people are discussing the same thing. Otherwise you get a lot of the heated debates where they're talking about different things but get frustrated by how the other party don't seem to get it.
My point is specifically that this term isn't useful regardless of how you define it. People will waste a lot of time and effort in trying to convince others about where to draw the line, and regardless of whether they agree or not, nothing will actually change in the real world.
One current example on AI is that people like to make the argument that AGI is a pointless goal because LLMs can't be sentient. Well, my definition of AGI doesn't need to be sentient, why does this matter? It just has to do my job better than me; I don't expect it to be sentient any more than I would of Stockfish.
When you break it down, it turns out we have very different core specs.
If I buy an AGI, I fully expect it to be able to cook for me and do my taxes. For someone else, AGI means it can give me recipes and how to do my taxes, but not actually filing them.
A lot of it is political too, like being the first to hit AGI, or some charlatan selling GPT-4 labeled as AGI. Which might be the reason why some don't like definitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is specifically that this term isn't useful regardless of how you define it. People will waste a lot of time and effort in trying to convince others about where to draw the line, and regardless of whether they agree or not, nothing will actually change in the real world.
I found it useful to define terms like "startup". Because some people would ask why Uber is a startup, but not some restaurant. That leads to questions like why Uber loses more money than a restaurant or why VCs put money into Uber but not restaurants. One current example on AI is that people like to make the argument that AGI is a pointless goal because LLMs can't be sentient. Well, my definition of AGI doesn't need…
The answers suddenly become useless because it's unclear if they're even talking about the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is specifically that this term isn't useful regardless of how you define it. People will waste a lot of time and effort in trying to convince others about where to draw the line, and regardless of whether they agree or not, nothing will actually change in the real world.
I found it useful to define terms like "startup". Because some people would ask why Uber is a startup, but not some restaurant. That leads to questions like why Uber loses more money than a restaurant or why VCs put money into Uber but not restaurants. One current example on AI is that people like to make the argument that AGI is a pointless goal because LLMs can't be sentient. Well, my definition of AGI doesn't need…
Right, my point is that you care about the specs, not the label. If something meets the specs, you will buy it even if whoever is selling it doesn't call it AGI, and vice versa.
"By AGI, we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work."